Juststeve

Toto:

You made the rather stupid assertion that no one prior to 150 of the common era claimed Jesus was historical. You knew better but never let reality interfere with making a myther argument. Have the good grace to admit when your wrong.

Have a good weekend.

Steve

Toto

Prove me wrong. Produce the name and date.

Mark's gospel can't be reliably dated that early, and it is not at all clear that he intended it to be about a historical person.

What else do you have? Nada. Zip.

TedM

Sorry, you lost me. Are you saying that Marcion's version of Luke was or wasn't something he believed happened literally?

Duvduv

TedM no one has ever seen a single document claimed to have been written or owned by Marcion. Not even Justin Martyr who SUPPOSEDLY lived in his time.
Why is Marcion a more likely person because some church writers claimed he did more than the gospel writers who claimed Jesus existed? Or at least the way the apologists said Marcion existed?

TedM

So do you think maybe noone was telling the truth about what Paul believed? The orthodoxy historicized Paul's Jesus despite the objections of those who really knew, and Valentinus and Marcion intentionally distorted Paul's non-HJ by taking the orthodox HJ and making him less human but still a Galillean preacher.

Wouldn't one group try to call the other one out on their lies if it was all about politics?

TedM

Can't follow your questions. We have quotes from Iranaeus right?

aa5874

Your claim is NOT accurate. The author of gMark claimed Jesus WALKED on water in FULL VIEW of his disciples and Transfigured in the Presence of Peter, James and John.

The walking on water and the Transfiguration are NOT the actions of a human being.

gMark wrote about a character that was the Son of God and named NO human father for his Jesus character.

Only Jesus is identified as the Son of God Multiple times in gMark.

You are just wrong and making stuff up. gMark's Jesus is Non-historical.

Now, please explain the Empty Tomb if Jesus was human???

You CANNOT.

gMark's Jesus was Mythology.

mountainman

Yes - that is a distinct possibility. To ignore this possibility is not performing an objective investigation.


Paul, Josephus, the Gospels, Marcion and Valentinus are all packaged by the orthodox source known as "Eusebius". One over-arching criteria of historical methodology is that any one source may be forged or corrupted.

At Nicaea the two opposing powers were the "orthodox" followers of Constantine and the "heretical" followers of Arius of Alexandria. They may not have been called Republicans and Democrats but it is a fact of history that they were diametrically opposed on some major issues, and that the heresiologists wrote pseudo-historical polemic about the heretics. For a classic example of this type of pseudo-historical polemic by the heresiologists, see the writings of the otherwise unknown Hegemonius, and the writer Ephrem Syria, against Mani and the Manichaean "heretics". Eusebius calls Mani a savage. WTF?

The question becomes whether the heresiologists also wrote pseudo-historical polemic about the othodox "early christians".



Yes that is precisely what happened. See the Arian controversy, the Origenist controversy, the Nestorian controversy and the massive controversy over the invectives of Emperor Julian. The orthodox had the army on their side, and therefore when the heretics were called out, they were also executed. See Ammianus Book 19 and the religious inquisitions of non-christian civilians of the empire at Scythopolis under "Paulus" c.350 CE.

Horatio Parker

I'm suggesting that perhaps "happened literally" wasn't a distinction they made.

Duvduv

There is no information about the life of Irenaeus in the
2nd century, and the book could have just as well been written in the 4th century. Justin Martyr is placed at the same time as Marcion in Rome in the mid 2nd century but the text says nary a word about anything that Marcion wrote or any "Christian" texts he possessed, and of course it is even odder that if Marcion had pauline epistles in the mid 2nd century, Justin knew nothing about the subject and of course never mentioned Paul either.